Month: January 2018

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

There was another article on LewRockwell.com by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, On Getting Libertarianism Right, in which Dr. Hoppe seems to be attempting to clarify libertarianism and private property in the context of the immigration issue. But he doesn’t clarify those points. Mainly it’s a case for promoting Western culture and society.

First, for some reason Hoppe seems to assert that advocates of immigration freedom are all “leftists” who have “politically correct” views, such as advocating “unrestricted ‘free’ immigration, ‘non-discrimination,’ ‘affirmative action’ and ‘openness’ to ‘diversity’ and ‘alternative lifestyles’.”

And I have addressed Hoppe’s previous talk he gave in which he referenced the immigration issue. In this new article, Hoppe does not answer any of the questions I asked in my post, so they remain unanswered. Should I assume that Hoppe just doesn’t want to answer those questions, and will just continue to insult those who disagree with him as “fake libertarians,” “leftists,” or “fools”?

In his new article, Hoppe’s main point seems to be that

all great libertarian thinkers which successively and gradually built up the system of libertarian law and order have been “Western Men”, i.e., men born and raised in countries of Western and Central Europe or their various overseas dependencies and settlements and intellectually and culturally united by a common lingua franca (once Latin and now English) and the trans-national Catholic Church or more lately and vaguely a common Christianity. That it is in these Western societies, where libertarian principles have found the most widespread public acceptance and explicit recognition as “natural human rights.” That, notwithstanding their blatant shortcomings and failings, it is Western societies, then, that still resemble, comparatively speaking, a libertarian social order most closely. And finally also, unsurprisingly insofar as the widespread recognition and explicit acceptance of the NAP by the members of a society are signs of a comparatively high(er) intelligence and impulse control, that it is these societies, then, that also are the technologically and economically most advanced.

And he states:

These observations alone should be sufficient to reveal any libertarian advocate of “free,” unrestricted and non-discriminatory immigration of non-Westerners into the countries of the West as a fool. Every such immigrant – not to speak of mass-immigration – poses the risk of further diminishing and undermining the already limited freedom and private property protection presently still enjoyed in the West. To prevent this, any libertarian worth its name must instead advocate the strict and utmost discrimination vis-à-vis any potential immigrant..

And finally,

“Free” mass immigration from the non-Western world, “multiculturalism,” “affirmative action,” “non-discrimination,” the propagation of “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative life-styles,” to “feminism” and “gay- and gender-ism,” and of “anti-authoritarianism,” – they all are and must be seen as means to further diminish whatever little discretionary, discriminatory and exclusionary powers still remain in Western societies in the hands of non-monopolistic social authorities and hierarchies of social authority, and to correspondingly expand and increase the powers centralized, concentrated and monopolized in the hands of the State.

So, he still really seems to be writing with a collectivist-like, “private-club”-like way of thinking, and, in the name of Western cultural preservation, seems to be abandoning the principles of private property and individualism, in my view. He does not seem to want to address the ideas of free markets and voluntary exchange that I expressed in my response to his previous speech. As I wrote in my response,

…Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

There is no collective ownership of an individual’s private property. The owner is sovereign over his own private property.

So Hoppe seems to abandon the individualist and free will/self-determination aspects of private property rights here, in my view.

By seeming to not address or criticize the current system of government immigration controls and the police state that go with them, Hoppe seems to be endorsing it, at least implicitly. And I find that disappointing. Alas, these days some people seem to be less “pro-market” and less “anti-State” than they used to be. Oh, well.

So it seems that Hoppe’s “Property and Freedom Society” could more accurately be the “Society for the Preservation of Western Culture,” because that might be more accurate. I just don’t know why he insists on fusing those immigration-freedom libertarians who advocate free market/voluntary exchange (such as myself) with the leftist SJW libertarians who don’t believe in freedom of discrimination and non-association.

It seems that this “Western culture” stuff is a major priority with some people to the point of advocating collectivism and some kind of communal ownership of a whole territory. Perhaps Hoppe’s thinking is influenced by his living in the Middle East right now? And in Turkey being ruled by an authoritarian nutjob Erdogan (as Justin Raimondo has just written about), in the middle of a region which is characterized by extreme primitivism and barbarism. And look at all those European countries being turned into Middle Eastern-like communities, and the higher crime rates. Who wouldn’t be influenced by those things?

In his new article, Hoppe writes, “Real libertarians – in contrast to left-libertarian fakes – must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change…” So how about returning to advocating the decentralization of society, especially by dismantling the State apparatus. That’s the strategy I think really needs to be promoted, once again — at least that should be the first priority. And I believe that a restoration of Western culture could be achieved naturally as a result of that decentralization process. After all, Hoppe has many times referred to in his speeches and writings of a “natural order.” And that’s important.

It is not uncommon to see self-driving cars being tested on the streets of San Francisco. I probably see one every other day. There are usually two people in the car, one on the driver’s side in case of an emergency.

The other day, a self-driving car was coming down a narrow street. My plan was to cross that street after the car had passed. I was facing a do not walk sign but it is the kind of stop where everyone practices anarchist calisthenics. The self-driving car had a green light but I lazily stepped off the curb to cross after the car passed but the car stopped at my crosswalk apparently because I had stepped off the curb.

If a human was driving the car, by my posture and lack of focus, it would have been easy for the human to tell I had no intention of crossing until the car had crossed. The self-driving car didn’t seem to be able to get this.

I am uncomfortable with this self-driving car stuff. The above makes sense to me. It would not surprise me if more accidents (and deaths, injuries) will be caused by self-driving cars than by human-driving ones. Will the car’s technology some day develop human instincts and judgment?

And if there needs to be a human in the car anyway (and I assume someone who must be able to drive as well), what is the point of having the car self-drive? Laziness? So the human can sit there with his face out the window like a dog?

Chris Calton had an interesting article at the Mises Institute on law enforcement not being the same thing as security, and that reminded me of an article I wrote that was on LewRockwell.com about 5 years ago, No More Police Socialism, And I will repost that here. (Some of the links may not still work, or are redirected to other pages, sorry about that.)

I’m no Murray Rothbard of course, but I would like to submit a variation on that theme: No More Police Socialism. It is increasingly frustrating that our society continues to support such a scheme, despite its incompetence, its criminality and its horrors.

As I have stated here several times now, there really is no legitimate need to allow a government to monopolize community policing and security.

But my article here is not intended to provide economic differences between police socialism and free markets, just to present a general case for abolishing the self-serving government police monopoly.

So the way I see it, theoretically, police or “law enforcement” socialism is when government bureaucrats possess the ownership of the means of production and provision of community policing and security while outlawing (at least implicitly) any competing agencies to do the same.

But a more honest assessment of police socialism is this: The people of a community already possess or could possess the means of providing their own security themselves. Those interested in doing so already have the natural right to establish private policing firms or voluntary groups and have a right to possess whatever armaments they wish to carry out such endeavors.

But in the current situation of police socialism, government bureaucrats have stolen from the people their ability to provide their own security, by making such attempts artificially unlawful and through disarmament schemes weakening the people’s abilities to physically defend and protect themselves when their lives and property are threatened.

The government bureaucrats have usurped and forcibly monopolized the means of production in security provision at the people’s expense. That, in a nutshell, is what police socialism is.

So what do these bureaucrats and monopolists do with their monopoly power, enforce the law?

Well, they enforce the thousands and thousands of made-up laws on the books which make artificial criminals of totally innocent human beings, that’s for sure.

Okay, but is such a government-monopolized system efficient? I’ll bet Murray Rothbard would answer in the negative.

Do the government police protect people from the aggressions of others? (Hmmm. I hear snickering out there.)

As CopBlock’s Peter Eyre noted recently, the government police have no legal obligation to protect anyone.

So why the hell do they exist?

Does anyone have a good answer to that question?

And this police socialism is coinciding with the outright fascism that our Rulers are shoving down our throats, with their gun registration/confiscations/banning, and other State intrusions and violations of the people’s rights.

As I wrote recently, the hysterical Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick presented his new gun control measures in January, and signed into law the mandatory collection of fingerprints of school teachers and others who might directly deal with children, including prospective adoptive parents.

Then, during the recent Blizzard of 2013, the fascist Gov. Patrick gave an executive order outlawing driving on all roads in Massachusetts, or risk a heavy fine and/or one year in jail! Can you believe these “liberals”?

During the 1980s, then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Stanley Dukakis had many photo-ops while standing around with his loyal police storm troopers. Dukakis and his fellow socialist/fascists were obsessed with ordering people to wear their seatbelt or face heavy fines.

The truth is, a lot of these police-state driving laws such as mandatory seatbelts are nothing more than revenue-enhancements for the State. It’s never enough revenue for them, and never enough bureaucrats and administrators to feed off the fees, fines and taxes.

And it’s never enough artificial power and authority to give to uniformed, badged and armed goons.

However, contrary to what the fascists and socialists believe, all human beings have an inalienable right to freedom of movement and to travel freely, and a right to self-defense. This is part of our more general right to life and liberty, to self-ownership, and to be free from the initiation of aggression by others.

Never mind all that, our Rulers say. They own the rest of us. And the Rulers seem to have this pathological compulsion to control our every movement now, with tracking and monitoring and surveillance cameras, and mandatory seatbelts or banning driving altogether, fingerprinting, registering firearms, and so on and so forth.

Alas, these “liberal” politicians just love to have control, they love the police state, for that is what socialism is all about. Our current socialist system of government monopoly in community policing and security naturally develops into a police state, and that is what we have now.

In California recently, out-of-control, “we’re really looking out for ourselves, not you lowly commoners” police goons were in a frantic search and destroy of an alleged “cop killer.”

In their hysterical fear that “one of their own” had turned against them and may be giving them a taste of their own medicine – of what government police all across America have been criminally dishing out to innocent people on a daily basis – these possibly steroid-laden Barney Fifes and Rambos shot up two different vehicles and injured innocent people, without having the patience to actually confirm whether or not their victims were the actual suspect.

William Grigg very articulately and thoroughly described in this interview the whole story of the cops’ criminally self-centered craziness, and how their actions were similar to Janet Reno’s Waco fiasco.

Another example of what police socialism gives us was last year when the Aurora, Colorado police ordered many people out of their cars stopped at an intersection, handcuffed all of them and searched their cars, based on a tip that a robbery suspect was among them.

Sadly, the general intelligence level of our “men in blue” has not been up to snuff in recent years. (Of course, when police forces are intentionally hiring applicants with lower IQs, then we might be asking for trouble. And the government schools are no help, as most of us already know.)

So God forbid we should require government police officers to read and understand the ideas of presumption of innocence and due process.

And God forbid we should require prudence, patience and rationality. Instead, rather than think things through when the times call for that, the unthinking short-sightedness inherent in socialism rules the day, and we get disaster and criminality.

Our short-sighted, immediate-gratification society of unthinking self-centeredness also pervades the category of public office-holders. The rise to the top of our Rulers is based not on moral character, intelligence or understanding of the rule of law, but based on rhetorical and demagogical abilities. Obviously, this trend has gotten much worse since Hayek wrote his Road to Serfdomnearly 70 years ago.

So we see the collectivism, extreme self-centeredness and pathological camaraderie of those California goons, as their blind obsession to find the “cop-killer” probably wouldn’t have been such an obsession had the suspect been just an ordinary civilian-killer.

Just as the ruling bureaucrats become addicted to their non-accountable monopoly powers, their controls over the population and their tax-funded free money and free stuff, so too do the government police become addicted to the power, control and artificial authority to stop, search, arrest and detain, bully and order around innocent civilians.

This increasing violence – institutionalized by the ruling bureaucrats – against innocent civilians, taxpayers, businesspeople, travelers, drivers, students or protesters, breeds the very kind of criminal behaviors which L.A. ex-cop Christopher Dorner was trying to expose, before he allegedly killed four people.

For decades, as the American culture has continually degraded, the socialist monopoly schemes have also degraded, which I believe is inherent in socialism, and the socialist government police scheme has also developed into a sick culture of violence.

But the government police have also fallen victim to a largely self-imposed dangerousness to their jobs, by willingly becoming a part of enforcing stupid and counter-productive laws such as those of the Establishment’s drug war, and acting as tax/fine robbers collectors for the State.

So, while the non-government individual civilian should stand up for oneself and one’s rights, so should these government police stand up for themselves, stand up to the dumb government bureaucrats who are making all these laws, not just drug-related, but thousands of other useless and intrusive laws, that these government cops are made to enforce.

Such fascism combined with the overall socialist system has turned America into a very undesirable, authoritarian and dangerous society. Uniformed, badged and armed government police order the people around, intimidate and threaten, unlawfully arrest and detain, taser and murder innocent civilians, and they get away with it with impunity.

This outright criminality is institutionalized by socialism. When you let a government monopolize the community’s policing and security and restrict the people’s rights to self-protection and defense, and when you do not require the armed agents of the State to act under the rule of law, what do you think this will lead to? A peaceful society? A secure civilian population?

And those “law-and-order” conservatives out there – those “anti-socialism” conservatives – this is the socialism they love, because most of them seem to be brainwashed their whole lives to love and worship armed, uniformed authority, no matter how bad it is or how criminally its agents act.

Speaking of our culture of violence, PBS recently did a story on violent video games and their effects on people, especially the younger generation.

Violent video games, movies and TV shows can contribute to the desensitizing of the humanity of others, of the victims of violence. What is worrisome is that many of the younger government police agents may be influenced by the kind of aggression that is promoted in those games.

But along with the increasing militarization of America’s government police forces, the federal Department of Homeland Security’s purchases of hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, and Obama and Congress’s campaign to disarm the American people, also worrisome is that the DHS and Department of Defense have been engaging in desensitization exercises. And worse, the police bureaucracy has been preparing to desensitize their goons toward firing upon civilians who attempt to defend themselves!

Unfortunately, many people actually believe that it is treasonous to disobey the authority of government bureaucrats and their minions (or who promote state secession from the United States).

But the opposite is true: Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” This is also referring to the agents of the federal government who would wage a war against the states or against the people of the states.

To begin, some people think that food stamps should apply to pets. Yup. There should be no problem with that. After all, dogs and cats are a part of the family, aren’t they?

I can see Fido going to Stop & Shop and using his food stamps for a can of Alpo, and he can use his EBT card, too.

Should dogs and cats get Medicare as well? How about dental? “Oh, Rover has buck teeth, so we better go to the orthodontist and get him braces.” (Oh wait, that might conflict with his piano lessons schedule. Sorry.)

And when he’s old maybe the Medicare policy will cover his dentures, too. When Rover and Fido retire they can go on Social Security, except that they probably won’t get back nearly as much as they paid into it.

Another annoying issue. In California the state assembly leader, Ian Calderon, wants to fine restaurant waiters $1,000 and throw them in jail for 6 months for giving restaurant patrons a straw with their drinks. According to Reason, Calderon (a Democrat — what else?) says, “We need to create awareness around the issue of one-time use plastic straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills, waterways, and oceans.”

So, this is what these environmental stasi are threatening now, and who knows what in the future. They’re really concerned about garbage. Yes, people use straws, they use plastic garbage bags or shopping bags, and a lot of other disposable stuff that they throw out.

Reason writes, “Calderon, along with news outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San FranciscoChronicle—unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them ending up in waterways and oceans.”

Well, that’s not because people are using them and throwing them out in the garbage where they are supposed to throw them out. It’s because they are littering! That‘s the problem. How about punishing people for littering? The environmentalist stasi wackos just don’t get that, obviously. But throwing a waiter in jail or stealing his money away from him, because of a straw? Is the waiter responsible for other people littering? Only brainwashed lunatics would think that. These people are definitely dangerous, these stasi nutsos.

Now, on to more serious matters, such as the flu so-called epidemic in America.

There is a rather large flu outbreak this year. Supposedly. People are dying everywhere. But how many of those cases are actual laboratory-confirmed cases? Many doctors urge people to get the flu shot, even though many doctors themselves don’t get the flu shot, and many of the people who are getting the flu shot still end up getting the flu, because the vaccine is only about 10% effective (or even less effective).

But the truth is, a lot of people’s immune systems are terrible, because they are malnourished, and so their chances of getting the flu will be higher. Besides the terrible junk food and processed food with all those chemicals interfering with the digestion of actually nutritious food that people might have, many people now are being poisoned with prescription drugs, especially kids who are being given psychiatric drugs that their still-developing bodies shouldn’t be given. Just some of the reasons why kids are sicker now than they were just a few years ago.

And many modern vaccines contain harmful additives and preservatives that can contribute to cognitive issues and can compromise your immune system. And that applies to any vaccines especially those which contain those additives. Some vaccines are deadly such as the HPV vaccine. Check out Sharyl Attkisson‘s page on the “debunked” linkage between vaccines and autism, and Jon Rappoport’s interview of Sharyl Attkisson regarding her reporting on the 2009 swine flu epidemic that wasn’t.

Donald Trump may be wrong about just about everything, especially trade, immigration, the drug war and the “war on terror,” but he’s got the flu vaccine stuff right. Regarding the flu shot, Trump told Opie and Jim Norton on SiriusXM in 2015, “I’ve never had (a flu shot). And thus far I’ve never had the flu. I don’t like the idea of injecting bad stuff into your body….I have friends that religiously get the flu shot and then they get the flu….And I’ve seen a lot of reports that the last flu shot is virtually totally ineffective.”

So, there is this religious, superstitious belief that people must get the flu shot. And those who are skeptical of the flu shot are called “tin-foil hat” types.

And we hear things like, “well your kid better get the flu shot or else keep him out of the same class with my kid,” and so on. So, if Bob got the flu shot but Mary didn’t get the flu shot, why is Bob concerned about being around Mary? After all, Bob got the flu shot, so therefore he won’t get the flu. Yet, Bob is still afraid of getting the flu from Mary because she didn’t get the flu shot, even though Bob did get the flu shot. In other words, Bob (and all the millions of other sheeple in Amerika) is admitting that the flu shot is ineffective, and it’s not worth the risk. Right, Bob? And also, Mary takes care of herself and keeps herself well-nourished. She is not malnourished as many Americans are. Mary eats a goodly amount of fruits and vegetables (and takes probiotics as well), takes vitamin D and gets those vitamins and anti-oxidants to keep her immune system strong, so that if she does come into contact with the flu virus, she will probably not get sick. Well, my experience with doctors is that they are extremely ignorant of the importance of nutrition and prefer to just give people harmful drugs and vaccines.

So we are constantly hearing, “yes the flu vaccine is ineffective, but get it anyway.” You see, the superstitious vaccine worshipers still condemn vaccine skeptics like “Burn the witch,” in the same way the global warming fanatics refer to skeptics as “deniers.” A lot of people still prefer to believe myths and propaganda, and the media promote getting the flu shot, all because the pharmaceutical companies need to make a lot of money with the vaccines. That’s the bottom line, I think.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has this informative article on the members of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee withholding information from the rest of Congress that probably would’ve changed the minds of several members and caused them to vote against the recent extension of warrantless (i.e. unconstitutional) surveillance of innocent Americans. The bill would not have passed had the other members had the information.

The recent behavior of the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee constitutes incompetence at best and misconduct in office at worst. The leadership sat on knowledge of NSA and FBI surveillance abuses that some committee members have characterized as “career-ending,” “jaw-dropping” and “KGB-like,” while both houses of Congress — ignorant of what their 22 House Intelligence Committee colleagues knew — voted to expand NSA and FBI surveillance authorities.

According to Zero Hedge, the memo in question names top current and former DOJ and FBI officials, including James Comey. Another top FBI hack is also said to be the leaker of confidential information to the Wall Street Journal.

If it’s true that FBI and DOJ officials abused surveillance authority and conspired with the DNC and the Clinton campaign to attempt to prevent a Trump election win, then their doing so was an attempt to undermine the will of the voters, which in my view would be a treasonous act. And I’m not a Trump supporter, as any regular reader to this blog well knows.

There was yet another school shooting that left two kids dead and injured several more, this time in Kentucky. But rather than insisting that “gun-free zone” laws be repealed, irrational hystericals like former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords want to strengthen the gun control laws.

In his attempt to revive Ron Paul’s bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congressman Thomas Massie wrote, according to Reason, “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments … Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.”

It’s only common sense.

And it’s only a matter of time that we hear about this week’s Kentucky school shooter having been on Xanax or some antidepressant or one of those combined with pain killers. There have been too many of them now.

And Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had been on Luvox, an SSRI anti-depressant also used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders.

While it was not officially confirmed that Sandy Hook School shooter Adam Lanza had been on psychiatric drugs, a parents rights organization sued the state of Connecticut to release Lanza’s medical records, but the request was denied “because ‘it would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications’.” I guess that answers that question.

And Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who has testified several times before Congress on these issues, speculates that Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter who apparently was a military psychiatrist, was in all likelihood “self-medicating” with psychiatric drugs.

A major study released last year showed that antidepressants can increase the risk of suicide. Some common antidepressants include Zoloft, Luvox, Celexa, Prozak, and Paxil…

Among antidepressant possible side effects are the worsening of the user’s depression, or causing an increase in stress or anxiety. In some cases, antidepressants can actually cause someone to be depressed.

Dr. Breggin has published this series on the Michelle Carter case. That’s the teen who was recently convicted of “texting her boyfriend into committing suicide.” Dr. Breggin’s series is quite extensive on that whole case. According to Dr. Breggin, who gave expert testimony at that trial, Ms. Carter and her late boyfriend had been taking prescription antidepressants for years up to that terrible moment. Dr. Breggin considers them both “victims of psychiatry.”

Dr. Breggin has also noted how pharmaceutical companies’ marketing strategies have pointed them toward the U.S. armed forces, some of whose members are taking dangerous combinations of drugs, and in which the suicide rate of servicemen is at an all-time high. According to military psychologist Col. Bart Billings, the military psychiatrists “have no clue about what they’re doing.” (So reassuring, isn’t it?)

Besides those kinds of drugs poisoning the kids and stunting their physical, emotional and intellectual growth, there are also vaccines (and too many of them), the harmful chemicals in processed foods and food dyes, and harmful street drugs.

Melissa Melton wrote in this article that, “Of the top ten prescription drugs linked to violence toward others, a 2010 study based on FDA adverse reaction data show that five were antidepressants and two were for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” And she quoted from a Facebook post that gun manufacturer John Noveske wrote shortly before he died in a (suspicious?) car crash, a full list of youths who had killed or hurt someone and the particular psychiatric drug the killers were taking:

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

…

And there are quite a few more on the list.

So why is it, after all this time that we have known that most of the school shooters (and many otherwise killers, assaulters, murderous reckless drivers, etc.) in the past 20 years have been drugged up not on hard drugs or street drugs but prescription psychiatric drugs, that the media still refuse to report on it? Are news media outlets that dependent on Big Pharma for ads?

But instead of addressing the real causes of these violent episodes, the hystericals want to disarm law-abiding, peaceful people and make them defenseless. WHY?

So I will quote further from my earlier linked post on all this, especially regarding the gun control hystericals out there:

Will the mainstream media zombies ever begin to report on these important aspects of the mass shootings of the past 20 years or so? When I was growing up, there were no school shootings. At least, none that I can remember ever hearing about. There was the Kent State massacre, but that was the government shooting and murdering innocent students. Government goons don’t need psychiatric drugs to make it easier for them to kill people. They’re the government!

And when I was growing up, there was no “ADHD” or “Asperger’s,” i.e. made-up labels to stick to kids just for acting like normal kids. And there was no Adderall, no Ritalin, no Xanax. The top 12 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history begin in 1966.

Besides these mass killers not controlling their emotions and aggression as normal people do, there is also the cultural aspect to this violence. American culture is now one of immediacy, distraction, and narcissism. And as Butler Shaffer and Jacob Hornberger observed, perhaps one reason why these mass shootings happen more in the United States and not in most other countries is that our government is the one government mainly that starts wars of aggression against other countries, occupies foreign lands and acts with impunity against foreigners. The American government police are also notorious now for their criminal violence against innocents. These criminal acts of aggression by government goons against foreigners and against the bureaucrats’ own fellow Americans are now being seen, especially by the young, as implicit acceptance of violence.

But rather than looking at these actual causes of these shootings, especially the psychiatric drugs, the mainstream media instead promote the government-imposed gun control agenda!

Yeah, how’s that “Gun Free Zone” stuff working out at Sandy Hook, and this week in Oregon, and at Fort Hood? You see, all you gun control robots out there, when you impose legal restrictions on guns, those who actually obey the law will obey those laws. The criminals, however, who don’t obey laws against murder, rape, robbery, and assault, obviously will not obey the gun laws! Why can’t the anti-gun people understand that? I wonder if they really just like the idea of disarming innocent people, and making innocent people defenseless. Including people deemed “mentally ill.” (But who is to decide who has “mental illness“? All those mentally ill bureaucrats in Washington? All those idiot psychiatrists and primary care “doctors” prescribing those life-destroying drugs like candy? But I digress.) Eventually, those people who disagree with the Regime and criticize the Bureaucracy will be diagnosed by the government psychiatrists as “mentally ill”!

No, it just makes the gun-grabbers feel good to see that they are taking away guns from peaceful, law-abiding people. But one thing the emotion-driven control freaks don’t like to acknowledge is that all tyrannical government regimes disarm the population as a way to strengthen and expand the bureaucrats’ own power and control. The Nazis disarmed the Jews to make it easier to murder them, by the way, as discussed in this book on Gun Control in the Third Reich by Stephen Halbrook. Yet, when we who understand history bring up these points against gun control, the gun-grabbing fanatics scoff at it, like we’re the irrational ones!

A source close to the matter tells Fox Newsthat “the memo details the Intelligence Committee’s oversight work for the FBI and Justice, including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance.” An educated guess by anyone who’s been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion that the report reveals extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team during and after the 2016 presidential election.

Besides the revelations of “collusions” involving FBI, DOJ, NSA, the DNC and the Clinton campaign that the mainstream media do not seem to be reporting on, there are other matters in the news.

Jacob Hornberger has an extensive 3-part series on the national security state and JFK. (In my view, in some ways the JFK situation was similar to the current situation with “intelligence” agencies allegedly attempting to oust Trump. Very anti-democratic, anti-American.)